Talk:Evo 2015

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the esports task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Melee (game terminology) (0 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (2 participants)
Game Sack (3 participants)
Delibird (10 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (7 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Date format change

@Tony1: Why are you changing the date format of references in this article without discussion? I don't believe there is any reason to go through with this change? See MOS:DATERET. ~Mable (chat) 15:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to retain different date formats in the refs and the body of the article? It seems weird to me. Tony (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The body of an article never uses a "YYYY-MM-DD" format. It seems silly to expect the body of an article, which uses dates in a way that makes sense in prose, has the same dateformat as the list of sources. I mean, I wouldn't mind a yy-mm-dd format in prose, I guess... ~Mable (chat) 11:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why use a different format in the reference list? Tony (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike YYYY-MM-DD, partly because it will always be inconsistent with the article text, but it's allowed by the MOS. I suggest you two stop reverting each other and follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if necessary. Tony, if you get reverted again I suggest you apply the other changes separately, as they seem uncontroversial and do improve the article. I don't think it's reasonable to expect another editor to do a partial revert of just the contentious parts. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the issue up over at the MOS talk page in order to get some clarity regarding the rules. Do note that neither of us broke 3 reverts. I wasn't planning to revert again without getting some outside input. Regardless, thank you for weighing in. ~Mable (chat) 22:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. 3RR is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Tony to the discussion, so they should have seen it already. I have difficulty believing that what I was doing was edit warring; undoing an edit that seemed unhelpful, and later undoing again 24 hours after I responded to Tony's first post here. I mean, that may have been a bit early, I guess? Sorry if it looked that way, anyway. If anything, I definitely didn't want to edit war on this, as some other changes were caught up on the mix and it was rather awkward... Sorry about that, Tony.

it seems like my reading of the MOS is being considered an accurate interpretation. I hope it's alright if I change things back now? I mean, I'd even try to do so without undoing Tony's other changes, though I have no idea how to go about that... ~Mable (chat) 07:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to accuse you of edit warring, just trying to explain my advice that you both stop reverting. I'm a fan of WP:BRD and would have stopped after the first revert. Let's give Tony another day to respond. @Tony1:? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can figure out how to exclude these from the script for a one-off. But first, please tell me: why the obsession with telephone-number dates in the ref section? They're harder for almost all readers to comprehend, aside from the within-article inconsistency they create. Tony (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They seem much more proper for a reference section to me. They're data, as one would expect. Rather, written-out dates belong in prose, as they are made to be read out, while yy-mm-dd is useful for actually looking dates up and such. It's also easier to write, for what it's worth. I don't understand the obsession with written-out months myself. ~Mable (chat) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think our main difference here is that I never really considered dates used in prose as the same kind of 'thing' as dates used in citations. Honestly, the idea of keeping dates used in prose consistent with one another is weird to me. I think for this article even, I had used both "1 January, 2018" and "January 1, 2018" interchangeably until someone else changed that. I'm not entirely sure what that says about me. Now for citations, on the other hand, it's important to be consistent and direct, and the yyyy-mm-dd format is absolutely perfect for that. ~Mable (chat) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept any of your arguments. However, to keep the peace, I've done what you wanted. The flags are another problem, to me: why is nationality emphasised in this way? Tony (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea. I didn't create the tables and just copied those over from the main article when I created this. Seems like a lot of gaming tournament articles use flags like these. I have personally no idea what is preferred. ~Mable (chat) 09:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]